Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

[RCSaunders]

Same answer: 'space' is not a 'thing'.

That's right! "Space," is actually a concept for the relationships between entities we call spatial, like distance and direction as well as spatial size, for example.

But what is a "thing"?

A, "thing," is a, "physical entity," an existent with physical attributes, including its spatial relationships to other entities and spatial size and dimensions, if it has any. Space has no physical attributes, it cannot be seen, weighed, moved, has no mass, momentum, or temperature (which all physical, "things," do). Obviously it cannot be bent.

[Eodnhoj7]

Same answer: 'space' is not a 'thing'.

That's right! "Space," is actually a concept for the relationships between entities we call spatial, like distance and direction as well as spatial size, for example.

And those entities are composed of further entities and have spatial forms.

But what is a "thing"?

A, "thing," is a, "physical entity," an existent with physical attributes, including its spatial relationships to other entities and spatial size and dimensions, if it has any. Space has no physical attributes, it cannot be seen, weighed, moved, has no mass, momentum, or temperature (which all physical, "things," do). Obviously it cannot be bent.

If space is the relation of things, and all things are composed of further things then those things are spatial.

[RCSaunders]

If space is the relation of things, and all things are composed of further things then those things are spatial.

That's right. All things have spatial attributes, but an attribute is not a thing.

Just as all red things have red as an attribute, but red is a, "quality," not a thing, and all things have size as a quality, but size is a, "quality," not a thing, so all entities have spatial relations, but, "relations," are not things. You cannot find any redness, size, or relationship independent of the entities they are the qualities of or relationships between. You cannot fine any, "left ofs", or, "aboves," or "north by northwests," or "eight miles souths," because they do not exist independent of things which are, "left of," another thing, "north by northwest" from another thing, or, "eight miles south," of another entity. Spacial attributes are just relationships, not existing entities. "Space," is just the collective word for all possible spatial relationships, not a thing, just as, "color," is just a general term of all possible chromatic attributes.

[Eodnhoj7]

If space is the relation of things, and all things are composed of further things then those things are spatial.

That's right. All things have spatial attributes, but an attribute is not a thing.

But you cannot shape form from a thing. Even light waves and colors possess wavelengths. All things exist through shapes, shapes exist through spatial forms.

Just as all red things have red as an attribute, but red is a, "quality," not a thing, and all things have size as a quality, but size is a, "quality," not a thing, so all entities have spatial relations, but, "relations," are not things. You cannot find any redness, size, or relationship independent of the entities they are the qualities of or relationships between. You cannot fine any, "left ofs", or, "aboves," or "north by northwests," or "eight miles souths," because they do not exist independent of things which are, "left of," another thing, "north by northwest" from another thing, or, "eight miles south," of another entity. Spacial attributes are just relationships, not existing entities. "Space," is just the collective word for all possible spatial relationships, not a thing, just as, "color," is just a general term of all possible chromatic attributes.

[nothing]

All things are subject to forms, all forms to shapes, all shapes to curves.

Same answer: 'space' is not a 'thing'.

But what is a "thing"?

No need: best to know what is not a "thing".

So A does not = A?

It can, but not necessarily.

So I'm going move the identity of the terms in your question, making none of the variables identical, just to prove a point.

I therefore "reject" the word "rejection," and term it "possible acceptance."

I reject the word "Aristotelian," and choose arbitrarily to redefine it as "Platonic."

I reject the word "identity," and decide to call it "hovercraft" instead.

I reject the concept of "law," and term it something like "emu."

So, since none of the identities in your original question are stable, and all have been rejected, your OP now reads to me as:

"Possible acceptance of Platonic hovercraft emu."

Or would you prefer I go back to respecting the Law of Identity?

Respecting the Law of Identity is intrinsically disrespectful, but do as you please.

The rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law is on the basis of it being incomplete, therefor limited.

Same answer: 'space' is not a 'thing'.

That's right! "Space," is actually a concept for the relationships between entities we call spatial, like distance and direction as well as spatial size, for example.

But what is a "thing"?

A, "thing," is a, "physical entity," an existent with physical attributes, including its spatial relationships to other entities and spatial size and dimensions, if it has any. Space has no physical attributes, it cannot be seen, weighed, moved, has no mass, momentum, or temperature (which all physical, "things," do). Obviously it cannot be bent.

On point.

And those entities are composed of further entities and have spatial forms.

If space is the relation of things, and all things are composed of further things then those things are spatial.

No they are not: space and time are reciprocal aspects of motion, and as RCSaunders pointed out, space itself has no attributes.

The equation I derived proves this implicitly - incoming thread.

[Immanuel Can]

Respecting the Law of Identity is intrinsically disrespectful...

You'll have to explain that one to me. It looks to me like the most "respectful" thing I can do is respect the terms you give to me as you are defining them, not morph them into something that suits my argument, instead of looking at yours.

But if you can explain that, I'm interested.

I wonder if you aren't mistaking Aristotle's claim that identity, once fixed within the terms of a logical syllogism, must be held consistent throughout that syllogism, (as in "Let X be 5,") for the mistaken idea that the Law of Identity pertains to empirical matters (as in "Once I think that a flying object is a bird, it cannot, on further inspection, turn out to be a bat.")

The Law of Identity (hereafter LOI) is not an empirical claim. It's an analytical one. It's a rule for accurate deduction from given concepts. Basically, it points out that to shift terms within a syllogism is going to create illogic -- and that is certainly true.

[RCSaunders]

But you cannot shape form from a thing.

The expression is awkward, but you certainly cannot, "shape a form," without a thing. Only physical things have shape or form. "Space," has neither.

[nothing]

Respecting the Law of Identity is intrinsically disrespectful...

You'll have to explain that one to me. It looks to me like the most "respectful" thing I can do is respect the terms you give to me as you are defining them, not morph them into something that suits my argument, instead of looking at yours.

The same would merit.

But if you can explain that, I'm interested.

Disrespectful is taken to be the same as disregardful: identity laws must be as inductively rooted as possible. Concerning identities as they pertain to variables: building whatever variable properties/parameters some/all identities have, into the variable itself, is respecting and regarding the identity-to-begin.

I wonder if you aren't mistaking Aristotle's claim that identity, once fixed within the terms of a logical syllogism, must be held consistent throughout that syllogism, (as in "Let X be 5,") for the mistaken idea that the Law of Identity pertains to empirical matters (as in "Once I think that a flying object is a bird, it cannot, on further inspection, turn out to be a bat.")

The problem is the fixing: if fixed with intrinsic variability that captures the full "range of motion", the variable is able to express that identity in any/all possible "states". Aristotle's A = A does not grant A the ability to reciprocate (ie. orient, navigate etc.).

The Law of Identity (hereafter LOI) is not an empirical claim. It's an analytical one. It's a rule for accurate deduction from given concepts. Basically, it points out that to shift terms within a syllogism is going to create illogic -- and that is certainly true.

Analytical continuation is fine, but all analysis is limited to the boundaries imposed (if any) on the variable concerned. The point I am making is a variable, to be a true variable, must contain a minimum intrinsic variability (+/-) to capture the most basic operators: in/out, to/from, yes/no etc. such that they may "navigate".

I derived the universal equation for the golden quadratic: the radical expression of pythagoras. This means that, given ax+bx+c/dx, all three exist in a golden relationship on any/every scale.

This is the expression plugged into a basic online graph program, broken into the three terms according to their own "null" relationship to one another:

[Immanuel Can]

Respecting the Law of Identity is intrinsically disrespectful...

You'll have to explain that one to me. It looks to me like the most "respectful" thing I can do is respect the terms you give to me as you are defining them, not morph them into something that suits my argument, instead of looking at yours.

The same would merit.

Yep, I read your message, but frankly don't understand most sentences in it.

The one above is a good example. It's got no direct object ("merit"? "Merit" what? ). It isn't even a whole sentence in fact. So I can't make heads or tails of that.

Carry on as you were, I guess.

[Eodnhoj7]

Same answer: 'space' is not a 'thing'.

But what is a "thing"?

No need: best to know what is not a "thing".

This is an assumption and thing can having no direct meaning if taking an apoptotic approach only.

So A does not = A?

It can, but not necessarily.

So I'm going move the identity of the terms in your question, making none of the variables identical, just to prove a point.

I therefore "reject" the word "rejection," and term it "possible acceptance."

I reject the word "Aristotelian," and choose arbitrarily to redefine it as "Platonic."

I reject the word "identity," and decide to call it "hovercraft" instead.

I reject the concept of "law," and term it something like "emu."

So, since none of the identities in your original question are stable, and all have been rejected, your OP now reads to me as:

"Possible acceptance of Platonic hovercraft emu."

Or would you prefer I go back to respecting the Law of Identity?

Respecting the Law of Identity is intrinsically disrespectful, but do as you please.

The rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law is on the basis of it being incomplete, therefor limited.

That's right! "Space," is actually a concept for the relationships between entities we call spatial, like distance and direction as well as spatial size, for example.

But what is a "thing"?

A, "thing," is a, "physical entity," an existent with physical attributes, including its spatial relationships to other entities and spatial size and dimensions, if it has any. Space has no physical attributes, it cannot be seen, weighed, moved, has no mass, momentum, or temperature (which all physical, "things," do). Obviously it cannot be bent.

But the forms which composed the "thing" have weight. The curves within curves are weigh relative to some other set of curves (ie another "thing").

On point.

And those entities are composed of further entities and have spatial forms.

If space is the relation of things, and all things are composed of further things then those things are spatial.

No they are not: space and time are reciprocal aspects of motion, and as RCSaunders pointed out, space itself has no attributes.

Space is curvature it is the foundation of all forms, hence attributes.

The equation I derived proves this implicitly - incoming thread.

[Eodnhoj7]

But you cannot shape form from a thing.

The expression is awkward, but you certainly cannot, "shape a form," without a thing. Only physical things have shape or form. "Space," has neither.

False, all shapes contain linear forms, curved or straight, and space is the curvature.

[RCSaunders]

False, all shapes contain linear forms, ...

Really? Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/embed/NxyHih5YvzQ

[Eodnhoj7]

False, all shapes contain linear forms, ...

Really? Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/embed/NxyHih5YvzQ

So being is not composed of curves?

[RCSaunders]

So being is not composed of curves?

Right!

[Eodnhoj7]

So being is not composed of curves?

Right!

So being is not composed of forms either?